On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 22:16 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> I think its perfectly understandable. Robert, Jeff and I discussed
> that for a while before we passed it. I'm still not happy with it, and
> think its a pretty confusing section of code with multiple paths
> through it, but I just can't see
On 24 May 2013 20:26, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-05-24 19:09:57 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 24 May 2013 18:40, Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> > That pattern looks dangerous. Setting the lsn of the heap page will
>> > prevent the next action from doing a FPI even if it would be required.
>>
>>
On 2013-05-24 19:09:57 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 24 May 2013 18:40, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > That pattern looks dangerous. Setting the lsn of the heap page will
> > prevent the next action from doing a FPI even if it would be required.
>
> Can you be more specific about the danger you see
On 24 May 2013 18:40, Andres Freund wrote:
> That pattern looks dangerous. Setting the lsn of the heap page will
> prevent the next action from doing a FPI even if it would be required.
Can you be more specific about the danger you see?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.c
Hi,
while thinking about vacuum freeze I noticed that since the checksums
patch visibilitymap_set() does:
/*
* If data checksums are enabled, we need to protect the heap
* page from being torn.
*/
if (DataChecksumsEnabled())
{
Page
